alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Severance Agreement between Registrant and Donald J. O'Neill



 Exhibit 10.13 
 July 21, 2008 
 To: Don O’Neill 
 From: Chris
Cardell 
 Cc: Alan Meckler 
 Subject: Severance 
 Jupitermedia Corporation (the “Company”) has determined that you hold an important position with the Company. Accordingly, the Company desires to provide you
with certain financial assurances to enable you to perform the responsibilities of your position without undue distraction. The Company hereby amends your rights in connection with a termination of your employment as follows: 
 You shall be entitled to (i) six (6) months of severance pay based on your then current base salary, payable in monthly increments, and (ii) the
continuation of standard Company benefits (paid by the Company) for an equal period of time in the event that your employment with the Company is terminated for any reason other than Cause. Cause shall be defined as (i) your conviction of a
felony, (ii) acts of fraud or extreme dishonesty which are intended to result in material damage to the Company’s business or reputation, (iii) your repeated and material non-performance of your duties, if not corrected, after written
notice from the Company, or (iv) material breach of any Company policy. 
 No other terms of your employment shall be modified except as expressly
stated above, all of which shall remain in full force and effect. 
 Yours truly, 
 

 
 Christopher S. Cardell 
 President
and Chief Operating Officer 
 Agreed by: 
 

 
 Don O’Neill 
 Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer
** **

**Exhibit 99.5**

** **

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Eric Roth, certify that:

 

1           I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 40-F of Extorre Gold Mines Limited;

 

2.          Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;

 

3.          Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.          Theissuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

 

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)          Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)          Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(d)          Disclosedin this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period coveredby the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.          Theissuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):

 

(a)          Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

(b)          Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS I, Michael P. Huseby, the Chief Financial Officer of CCH II, LLC and CCH
II Capital Corp. (collectively, the Company) in compliance with 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, hereby certify that, the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2004 (the Report) filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission:  
    
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company. /s/ Michael P. Huseby

Michael P. Huseby
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
August 13, 2004
1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-4051

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Jose Parks, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 28, 2007 Filed: October 4, 2007

___________ Before LOKEN, Chief Judge, WOLLMAN and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
The district court 1 concluded Jose Parks (Park s) was a career offender under United States Sentencing Guideline § 4B1. 1 based on Parks’s prior felony convictions for escape and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. Parks appeals, arguing the district court erred in (1) applying the preponderance of the evidence standard, rather than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, to determine whether Parks’s prior convictions qualify as crimes of violence or controlled substance offenses, and (2) concluding Park s’s escape conviction qualifies as a crime-2- of violence. We disagree. “Determining whether a prior conviction is a ‘crime of violence’ for § 4B1.2 purposes is a question of law, not a question of fact found by the judge.” United States v. Bockes , 447 F.3d 1090, 1093 n.4 (8th Cir. 2006). A district court need not apply the beyond a reasonabl e doubt standard to determine whether a prior conviction qualifies as a crime of violen ce or a controlled substance offense. See United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 244 (2005) (“Any fact ( other than a prior conviction ) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (emphasis added). Parks’s escape conviction qualif ies as a crime of violence. See United States v. Nation , 243 F.3d 467, 472 (8th Cir. 2001) (holdi ng “escape is categorically a crime of violence”).

We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________
EXHIBIT 31.8

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) AND RULE 15d-14(a)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I,
Mark L. Wetzel, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Aviv Healthcare Properties Limited Partnership;
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|3. | Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |  |  |                                                                                                    
|-------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2015 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Mark L. Wetzel                                                                                 
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Mark L. Wetzel                                                                                     
|                     |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer (principal financial officer) of Registrants General Partner
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

p0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

145063

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145063

COA: 306866

Kent CC: 09-013433-FC

SHAWN MICHAEL GODFREY,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 15, 2012 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 32.1

SUNLINK HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of SunLink Health Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the
quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Thornton, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Robert M. Thornton, Jr.Robert M. Thornton, Jr.Chief Executive Officer


November 13, 2009
(Reap. Dec. 9235)

#### Bluefries New Tork, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 744141.

(Decided October 10, 1958)

*Michael Stramiello, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Douh,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

WilsoN, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties herein:

IT IS STIPULATED by and between the attorneys for the parties that:

> 1. The merchandise marked *‘A’*and initialed *JJO*by Examiner *J. J. O’Connor, Jr.*on the invoice herein consists of “SIGMAVAR” and was appraised on the basis of American selling price as defined in Section 402 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and is the same in all material respects as the subject merchandise in *BLUEFRIES NEW YORK INC.*V. *UNITED STATES,*C. D. 1909, in which this Court held the appraisement to be void since classification was under the provisions of paragraph 75 of the Act.

> 2. The market value or price of the “SIGMAVAR” herein at the time of the exportation thereof to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States was U. S. $5.50 per gallon, less 2 percent, and less packing, freight, duty, delivery charges and customs entry charges.

> 3. There was no higher foreign value.

> 4. The instant appeal for reappraisement is submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the items marked “A” on the invoice herein, and that such value was United States $5.50 per *563gallon, less 2 per centum, less packing, freight, duty, delivery charges, and customs entry charges.

As to all other merchandise, the appeal for reappraisement is dismissed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
REVOLVING
      LOAN AGREEMENT

     

    Date:
      November
      20, 2006

     

    Credit
      Limit: $6,255.00

     

    RFG
      Acquisition I Inc., a Delaware corporation, promises to pay JOHN W. BRANCH
      (“Lender”), an individual, the sum of SIX THOUSAND, TWO HUNDRED FIFTY-FIVE and
      00/100 DOLLARS ($6,255.00) (the “Credit Limit”) or such other principal amount
      that may be outstanding, in no case to exceed the Credit Limit, as evidenced
      by
      the books and records of Lender. Interest shall accrue at a rate of 4.75% per
      annum and be calculated based on actual days outstanding and a 360 day year.
      The
      outstanding principal and interest shall be paid upon the earlier of a
      completion of a merger or December 31, 2010. Lender hereby agrees to promptly
      extend funds to RFG Acquisition I Inc. as and when requested in a principal
      amount not to exceed the Credit Limit. 

     

    In
      the
      event of a default in the payment of any principal or interest, as herein
      provided, all sums due shall bear interest at a rate of ten percent (10.0%)
      per
      annum from the date then due until such payment is made. In the event of a
      default in the payment of principal or interest when due, the whole sum of
      principal and interest shall become immediately due and payable at the option
      of
      the Lender. The waiver of any right or rights granted to RFG Acquisition I
      Inc.
      shall not be deemed to be a continuing waiver of such right or rights. All
      such
      waivers shall be in writing. Principal and interest shall be payable in US
      dollars. If any legal or collection action is instituted on this Revolving
      Loan
      Agreement, RFG Acquisition I Inc. promises to pay such sum as the court may
      fix
      as attorney's fees and costs.

     

    RFG
      Acquisition I Inc. 

     

    
      	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	/s/
              David W.
              Matre	 	 	Date: November 20, 2006
	 	
              

              David
                W. Matre

            	 	 	
            
	 	
              Chief
                Financial Officer  

            	 	 	
            


    

     

    “Lender”

     

    
      	 	 	 	 
	/s/
              John W.
              Branch	 	 	Date: November 20, 2006
	
              

              JOHN
                W. BRANCH, an individual

            	 	 	
            


    

     

    DO
      NOT DESTROY THIS ORIGINAL AGREEMENT
October 21, 2015

Mr. Tracy Scott Compton

1136 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94103

Dear Mr. Compton:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your July 21, 2015 exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−3053, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.
2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
No. 51128.

#### Protests 81496-K/12532, etc., of S. H. Kress & Co. et al. (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 928 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 928

To repeal the High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program and transfer 
     funds under such program to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
                       Assistance Grant Program.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 9, 2023

 Mr. Johnson of Ohio introduced the following bill; which was referred 
    to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the 
Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined 
 by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as 
        fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the High-Efficiency Electric Home Rebate Program and transfer 
     funds under such program to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 
                       Assistance Grant Program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE HIGH-EFFICIENCY ELECTRIC HOME 
              REBATE PROGRAM TO THE EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE 
              ASSISTANCE GRANT PROGRAM.

    (a) Repeal.--Section 50122 of Public Law 117-169 is repealed.
    (b) Transfer of Funds.--The unobligated balance of funds available 
under such section 50122 (as in effect on the day before the date of 
enactment of this Act) is transferred to, and merged with, amounts 
available for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant 
program as authorized by subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus 
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et seq.).
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--
            (1) Section 50121(c)(7) of the Public Law 117-169 is 
        amended by striking ``, including a rebate provided under a 
        high-efficiency electric home rebate program (as defined in 
        section 50122(d)),''.
            (2) Section 50123(a) of the Public Law 117-169 is amended 
        by striking ``or a high-efficiency electric home rebate program 
        (as defined in section 50122(d))''.
                                 <all>
```
Case: 2:11-cv-00658-EAS-MRA Doc #: 18 Filed: 05/23/12 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T20:17:36-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22

- 6870

JOEL AARON BURRELL,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. WILLIAM J. ANDERSON, Lt. Col. Assistant Superintendent; DAVID HACKWORTH, Superintendent (previous); C. WALZ, Asst. Superintendent (previous); A. BOYER, Sgt.; K. MURPHY, Lieutenant; BHAGIRATH, Captain; D. SHIRLEY, Correctional Officer; JONES, Corporal; SCADD, Correctional Officer; JANE DOE, Wellpath Employee; L. JONES, Sergeant; GREEN, (Female), Corporal; JANE DOE, Correctional Officer; A. CASPER, Sergeant; CLARK, Doctor; P. WESTBROOK

- SCOTT, Health Service Administrator,
Defendants

- Appellees

.

No. 22

- 6950

JOEL AARON BURRELL , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. WILLIAM ANDERSON, Lt. Col. Assistant Superintendent; DAVID HACKWORTH, Superintendent (previous); C. WALZ, Asst. Superintendent (previous); A. BOYER, Sgt.; K. MURPHY, Lieutenant; BHAGIRATH, Captain; D. SHIR LEY, Correctional Officer; JONES, Corporal; SCADD, Correctional Officer; JANE DOE, Wellpath Employee; L. JONES, Sergeant; GREEN, (Female), Corporal; JANE DOE, Correctional Officer; A. CASPER, Sergeant; CLARK, Doctor; P. WESTBROOK

- SCOTT, Health Service Admi nistrator , USCA4 Appeal: 22-6950 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 1 of 32 Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. T.S. Ellis , III, Senior District Judge. ( 1:21

- cv - 00864

- TSE

- TCB )

Submitted : December 15, 2022 Decided: December 20, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Joel Aaron Burrell , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-6950 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM:
Joel Aaron Burrell appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court
order and the court’s order denying hi s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion

. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by
the district court. Burrell v. Anderson , No. 1:21

- cv - 00864

- TSE

- TCB (E.D. Va. June 29, 2022; Aug. 3, 2022) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 22-6950 Doc: 9 Filed: 12/20/2022 Pg: 3 of 3